1. Rights of the Accused in the 5thAmendment

2. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Name: Ernesto Miranda Age: 23
Education: 9th grade
Location: Phoenix, Arizona

3. Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
An accused person has the these rights when he is in police custody:
He has the right to remain silent,
Anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law,
He has the right to the presence of an attorney, and
If he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.

4. The Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

5. Threshold Questions 5th Amendment
Was the person in “custody”?
Were the statements made given “freely” and “voluntarily”?

6. Fifth Amendment Rationale for the Exclusionary Rule
To avoid the risk that statements were forced in violation of the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights;
To encourage officers to comply with the Miranda rules, thereby lessening the future likelihood of compelled self-incrimination; and
To discourage any police practices that tended to compel confessions from suspects.

7. Balancing the rights of the individual with public safety.
Philosophical Roots
LIMITED GOVERNMENT
Balancing the rights of the individual with public safety.

8. Custody controversy
Custody requires a significant deprivation of liberty.
A person is in custody only if they are subjected to either formal arrest or its “functional equivalent.”
Formal arrest—occurs when a person is explicitly told they are being placed under arrest or is booked at the stationhouse.
Functional equivalent—occurs when a suspect's freedom of action is significantly curtailed to a degree associated with a formal arrest.
Consider a reasonable person under the same conditions of the suspect:
Would a reasonable person under the same circumstances believe they were free to leave? (In other words: what would an average or typical member of the community think under the same circumstances?)
The Court is not trying to figure out what this particular suspect thought.

9. Oregon v. Mathiason (1977)
Mr. Mathiason was invited to a police station to answer questions about a burglary. He came freely and was told he was not under arrest. Mathiason confessed to the crime and later claimed it should not be used at trial because he had not been properly Mirandized.
In a 6-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that since the questioning took place in a context where Mathiason’s freedom to depart was not restricted in any way, he came voluntarily to the police station, and was informed that he was not under arrest, he was not in police custody at the time of his confession, so Miranda rules did not apply.

10. Greenwald v. Wisconsin (1968)
Mr. Greenwald was arrested on suspicion of burglary and interrogated at a police station. Over the course of 24 hours, he was denied medication, sleep, and food. He made no incriminating statements to police, and repeatedly denied guilt, but later provided a written confession. According to his testimony, Greenwald confessed because "I knew they weren't going to leave me alone until I did."
In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that under the "totality of the circumstances" surrounding petitioner's confession that it was not voluntary. Greenwald was not given counsel, and was denied food, sleep, and medication; and was not given adequate warnings as to constitutional rights. “Considering the totality of these circumstances, we do not think it credible that petitioner’s statements were the product of his free and rational choice.

11. Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004)
Alvarado is a 17 year old high school student. A police detective contacted his mother who agreed to bring him to the police station for questioning about a recent crime. When Alvarado arrived with his parents, the detective denied the parents’ request to remain with their son during the interview. While the parents waited in the lobby, Alvarado was questioned by police. He was not advised of his Miranda rights. During the two hour session, the detective twice asked Alvarado if he wanted to take a break. Alvarado admitted to his role in a murder and robbery that police were investigating. At the end of the interview Alvarado went home. His confession was offered as evidence against him at trial.

12. Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004)
In a five to four decision, the Court strongly suggested that Alvarado was not in custody for Miranda purposes. Alvarado came voluntarily to the police station, was never told that he could not leave, was not threatened with arrest, and was allowed to return home after the interview. In determining whether Miranda warnings are required, the custody inquiry is from the point of view of a reasonable suspect in the situation, not the particular suspect actually in the situation. Thus, Alvarado’s age and inexperience with police were irrelevant in the custody inquiry.

13. New York v. Quarles (1984)
After receiving the description of an alleged assailant, a police officer entered a supermarket, and spotted Quarles, a man fitting the description. The officer ordered Quarles to stop. Quarles complied and was then frisked by the officer. Upon detecting an empty shoulder holster, the officer asked Quarles where his gun was. Quarles responded. The officer then formally arrested Quarles and read him his Miranda rights. Both the gun and Quarles initial response were offered as evidence against him at trial.